coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Bratislava.
5.  On 9 April 1997 the applicant sued his employer for unpaid salary before the Bratislava II District Court (file no. 10 C 90/1997).
6.  Having held two hearings in 1997, the District Court concluded that an expert opinion was necessary.
7.  On 6 August 2001 the District Court ordered an expert opinion.
8.  Following nine hearings between 2003 and 2005, the District Court adopted a judgment on 14 April 2005.
9.  The Bratislava Regional Court, upon the applicant’s appeal of 11 July 2005, quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the District Court for a new determination. The case file was returned to the District Court on 3 April 2008.
10.  On 8 April 2010 the District Court delivered a judgment on the merits. It also ruled that the costs and expenses would be decided upon once the judgment on the merits became final. The judgment on the merits became final on 28 May 2010.
11.  On 22 July 2010 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court about the length of the proceedings before both the Bratislava II District Court and the Bratislava Regional Court.
12.  On 25 August 2010 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s complaint (case no. III. ÚS 316/2010). The Constitutional Court examined separately the length of the proceeding on the merits and the length of the proceedings concerning the costs and expenses. It held that the proceedings on the merits had ended by a final judgment before the applicant had lodged his constitutional complaint, i.e. after the state of his legal uncertainty had been eliminated. He thus failed to respect its established practice requiring the introduction of such complaints when the proceedings were pending. As to the proceedings concerning the costs and expenses, the Constitutional Court observed no delays and also pointed out that the applicant had not expressly complained of this part of the proceedings.
13.  On 23 September 2010 the District Court gave a decision on the costs and expenses which was upheld by the Regional Court on 28 June 2011. The decision of the Regional Court was served on the applicant’s lawyer on 24 August 2011.
5.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Prilep.
6.  On 14 January 1998 the applicant lodged a civil action against the State claiming compensation for alleged failure of the domestic courts to decide his appeal in other proceedings in which he had sought reopening of a criminal case against him. During the proceedings, the applicant specified his claim on several occasions.
7.  On 3 June 1999 the Skopje Court of First Instance (“the first-instance court”) dismissed the applicant’s claim. On 26 January 2000 the Skopje Court of Appeal confirmed that decision. On 14 November 2002 the Supreme Court upheld the applicant’s appeal on points of law and remitted the case for re-examination.
8.  Between 27 February 2003 and 5 July 2005 the first-instance court ordered ten adjournments, of which two were requested by the applicant.
9.  On 5 July 2005 the first-instance court dismissed the applicant’s claim. On 28 December 2005 the Skopje Court of Appeal quashed that decision and remitted the case for fresh consideration.
10.  On 14 April 2006 the first-instance court dismissed the applicant’s claim. On 24 November 2006 and 28 May 2008, respectively, the Skopje Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court confirmed that decision.
4.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lived in Volgograd prior to his arrest.
5.  On 31 January 2003 the applicant was arrested and charged with theft and the use of forged identity documents. Two days later he was remanded in custody.
6.  On 6 April 2004 the Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Volgograd found him guilty as charged and sentenced him to three years and six months’ imprisonment. On 27 July 2004 the Volgograd Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
7.  In the meantime, criminal proceedings against the applicant and five other individuals were instituted on the charges of participation in a criminal syndicate, several counts of aggravated robbery, inflicting serious injuries and two counts of murder. On 12 April 2004 the case went to trial.
8.  On 26 June 2009 the Volgograd Regional Court found the defendants guilty, on the basis of a jury verdict. The applicant was sentenced to eighteen years’ imprisonment in a high-security institution. On 18 March 2010 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the conviction on appeal.
9.  Between 2 February 2003 and 25 April 2010 the applicant was held in remand prison IZ-34/1 in the Volgograd Region. From 30 November to 26 December 2006 and from 16 March to 23 April 2009 the applicant was transferred to a penitentiary medical facility in the Volgograd Region where he received treatment for tuberculosis.
10.  The prison was severely overcrowded. Thus, cell 41 measuring 20 sq. m was equipped with 16 sleeping places and accommodated up to 30 inmates; cell 64 measuring 10 sq. m was designed for 6 and housed up to 16 individuals; furthermore, cell 70 measuring 16 sq. m presented 6 places and up to 15 detainees who occupied them.
11.  In addition, the applicant complained about the following aspects of the detention: detainees had to use a hole in the floor as a toilet; cells were equipped with lavatory pans for the first time in 2008. Until 2010, there had been no partitions between toilets and the living space. Hot water was not available.
12.  The applicant brought an action before the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation for compensation for a breach of his right to a trial within a reasonable time. He relied on the new Compensation Act (see below).
13.  By decision of 29 September 2010, the Supreme Court instructed the applicant to supply additional information and documents by 22 October 2010. On 27 October 2010 the Supreme Court disallowed the applicant’s action because the information had not been received.
14.  The applicant challenged the decision of 27 October 2010 on appeal. He submitted that the requested information and documents had been sent to the Supreme Court on 19 October 2010.
15.  On 28 December 2010 the Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court rejected the appeal, finding that the applicant’s submission had been belated because they had only reached the court on 29 October 2010.
4.  The applicants were born in 1950 and 1946 respectively and live in Sumgayit.
5.  The first applicant has tenancy rights to her flat on the basis of an occupancy voucher (yaşayış sahəsi orderi) and the second applicant is an owner of his flat on the basis of an ownership certificate issued by the competent domestic authority (see Appendix - Table I).
6.  In both cases, the applicants’ flats were unlawfully occupied by internally displaced persons (“IDPs”) from different regions of Azerbaijan under occupation by Armenian military forces following the Armenian Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh.
7.  The applicants lodged separate civil actions before the domestic courts seeking the eviction of the IDPs from their flats.
8.  On the dates indicated in the Appendix, the applicants’ claims were granted by the domestic courts, which ordered the eviction of the IDPs from their flats.
9.  In application no. 16806/11 (lodged by the first applicant) the execution of the judgment was postponed, by virtue of the judgment’s operative provision, until IDPs’ return to their land or their settlement in other temporary accommodation.
10.  No appeals were filed against these judgments and, pursuant to the domestic law in force at the material time, they became enforceable within one month after their delivery. However, the IDP families refused to comply with those judgments and despite the applicants’ complaints to various authorities, the judgments were not enforced.
11.  The applicants instituted court actions against the enforcement authorities complaining of their inactivity and seeking prompt execution of the judgments. On 19 March 2010 the Sumgayit City Court dismissed Ms Israfilova’s claims. On 11 May 2010 the Sumgayit Court of Appeal considered her appeal inadmissible. On 21 May 2011 the Sumgayit City Court granted Mr Agalarov’s claims, ordering immediate execution of the judgement.
4.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Prestranek.
5.  On 13 November 1996, following a decision on his retirement, the applicant instituted proceedings against his former employer, the Republic of Slovenia, Ministry of Defence, before the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court. The case was initially conducted as a social dispute before the Social Court.
6.  On 5 March 1998 the defendant responded to the claim.
7.  On 7 December 1999 the court held the first main hearing.
8.  On 11 February 2000 the second main hearing was held.
9.  On 16 February 2000 the applicant gave a declaration before the court specifying his claim.
10.  Following the applicant’s declaration of 16 February 2000, as of 6 July 2000 the case was conducted as a labour dispute and was examined by the Labour Court.
11.  On 24 January 2001 the third main hearing was held. At the hearing the applicant amended his claim.
12.  On 7 May 2001 the applicant was invited by the court to assist him in amending his claim.
13.  On 6 June 2001 the applicant requested the court for an extension of the time-limit for amending his claim.
14.  On 8 June 2001 and 11 June 2001 the applicant amended his claim. On 15 June 2001 he submitted further documents to the court.
15.  On 11 October 2001 the defendant responded to the claim.
16.  Further two main hearings were held on 13 May 2002 and 18 September 2002. On the latter date the applicant orally amended his claim.
17.  In January 2003 the applicant amended his claim in writing.
18.  On 12 February 2003 a further main hearing was held. On the same date the Labour and Social Court granted a small part of the applicant’s claim and dismissed the remainder of the claim. Both parties appealed.
19.  On 16 December 2004 the Higher Labour and Social Court granted the appeals and remitted the case back to the first instance.
20.  On 17 January 2005 the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court rejected the applicant’s claim. In a separate order the court ordered the applicant to pay the costs of the proceedings. The applicant appealed against both decisions.
21.  On 31 March 2006 the Higher Labour and Social Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal regarding the rejection of the claim, modified the decision on the costs of proceedings and dismissed the remainder of the applicant’s appeal relating to aforementioned decision.
22.  On 29 May 2007 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law. The applicant lodged a constitutional appeal.
23.  On 4 July 2008 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional appeal.
4. The applicant, Mrs Marina Ilyinichna Kaykhanidi, is a Russian national who was born in 1979 and now lives in Berlin.
5.  Since 1996 the applicant studied at the Moscow State Linguistic University (the MSLU). In 2000 she obtained a traineeship with the Humboldt University in Berlin. She went to Germany for several months and, consequently, abandoned her courses at the MSLU. She claims that she returned to Moscow in September 2000 and resumed her studies in the MSLU. However, in May 2001 she was sent down from this university for repetitive non-attendance and failure to pass the exams.
6.  On 17 July 2001 the applicant challenged her dismissal before the court. On 20 December 2001 the Cheremushkinskiy District of Moscow granted her claim. The court established that the applicant had been dismissed without having been heard about the reasons of her absences. On this ground the court found the dismissal unlawful and ordered the MSLU to reinstate her as a student.
7.  The MSLU appealed, but on 20 February 2002 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision in favour of the applicant.
8. On 28 February 2002 the MSLU brought a supervisory review application. On 13 June 2002 the Presidium of the Moscow City Court quashed the lower courts’ decisions. As to the fact that the applicant had not been heard before having been dismissed, the Presidium found that the MSLU dean tried to contact the applicant, but to no avail, since she was outside Russia. The court obtained information from the border police about the applicant’s absences from the Russian territory. According to that information, the applicant was outside Russia for at least seven weeks during the study time. Further, the court obtained information from the Humboldt University which confirmed that starting from April 2001 the applicant had been enrolled at that University as a full-time student. The Presidium also held that the lower courts applied the law incorrectly and decided to remit the case to the first instance court for a fresh examination.
9.  After the transmittal of the case to the first instance court the applicant amended her initial complaint, claiming from the MSLU 600,000 Russian roubles (RUB) as non-pecuniary damages.
10.  On 19 March 2003 the Cheremushkinskiy District Court of Moscow discontinued the proceedings. The court found that the complaint was introduced under the provisions of the law of 1993, which provided for the judicial review of administrative actions. However, after the enactment of the new Code of Civil Proceeding on 1 February 2003, such claims should have been examined under the rules of “contentious proceedings” (исковое производство). The court advised her to re-introduce her complaint within the contentious proceedings. On 16 May 2003 the Moscow Regional Court upheld the decision of 19 March 2003.
11.  The applicant re-introduced her claim; however, she did not follow the instructions of the courts. The courts at two instances again refused to examine her action.
4.  The applicant, Mr İbrahim Güler, is a Turkish national who was born in 1973 and is currently serving a prison service in Diyarbakır.
5.  On 5 November 1996 the applicant was taken into police custody during an operation carried out against Hizbullah, an illegal organisation.
6.  On an unspecified date the applicant was questioned in the absence of a lawyer by police officers, who asked him about his affiliation to Hizbullah and events in which he was alleged to have taken part.
7.  On 12 November 1996 the applicant was brought before the Mardin Public Prosecutor. He confirmed the content of his police statements before the prosecutor in the absence of a lawyer.
8.  On the same day, an investigating judge at the Mardin Magistrate’s Court ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention, again in the absence of a lawyer. He accepted the allegations against him and confirmed the statements he had made before the police and the public prosecutor.
9.  According to two reports in the case file, dated 10 and 12 November 1996 respectively, the applicant was medically examined by a doctor who noted that there were no signs of physical violence on the applicant’s body.
10.  By way of an application dated 30 December 1996, the applicant retracted his statements made before the police and the public prosecutor and requested his release from the Diyarbakır Public Prosecutor’s office. He maintained that he had been tortured in police custody and that he had been threatened whilst being taken to the public prosecutor.
11.  On 26 November 1996 the Diyarbakır Public Prosecutor lodged an indictment before the Diyarbakır State Security Court, charging the applicant under Section 146 of the former Turkish Criminal Code with attempting to undermine the constitutional order of the State.
12.  On 28 January 1997 at the first court hearing in the applicant’s case, the applicant retracted his statements made to the police, the public prosecutor and the investigating judge, alleging that they had been made under duress.
13.  State Security Courts were abolished on 16 June 2004 by Law no. 5190. The case was accordingly transferred to the Diyarbakır Assize Court.
14.  Throughout the proceedings, the applicant denied all the accusations against him.
15.  On 31 March 2005 the first-instance court convicted the applicant as charged.
16.  On 11 December 2006 the Court of Cassation quashed the conviction.
17.  On 9 November 2007 the Diyarbakır Assize Court once again convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
18.  On 21 January 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the conviction.
4.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Budapest.
5.  From 1 April 1999 until 30 June 2004 the applicant was employed as a civil servant. On 17 June 2005 he brought an action against his former employer before the Pest County Labour Court, challenging his previous civil service grade and claiming payment for outstanding salary, allowance in lieu of untaken leave and compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
6.  On 8 July 2008 the court ordered the respondent to pay 1,863,322 Hungarian forints (HUF) (approximately 6,400 euros (EUR)) and accrued interests for outstanding salaries, reward and allowance in lieu of untaken holidays.
7.  By its decision of 30 October 2009 the Pest County Regional Court decreased the amount to HUF 1,618,883 (approximately EUR 5,500) and accrued interests. The applicant submitted a petition for review against this decision.
8. On 2 February 2011 the Supreme Court increased the amount payable to the applicant to HUF 1,982,813 (approximately EUR 6,800) and accrued interests. This decision was served on the applicant on 3 March 2011.
4.  The applicant was born in 1981 and lives in Szombathely.
5.  At the material time, he was serving his prison sentence for fraud and forgery of public documents.
6.  On 20 December 2006 the applicant was interrogated as a suspect by the Budapest X District Police Department on charges of fraud. Subsequently, a bill of indictment was preferred.
7.  On 2 June and 12 October 2010, 14 January, 22 April, 16 September 2011 and 24 February 2012 the Pest Central District Court held hearings. On 24 February 2012 the applicant was found guilty as charged and sentenced to eight months’ imprisonment.
8.  The applicant lodged a petition for review against the judgment. On 11 October 2012 the Supreme Court declared the applicant’s petition inadmissible, without examining the merits, since it was incompatible ratione materiae with the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Budapest.
5.  On 22 November 2002 Ms G.D. and two others brought an action against the applicant and ten further respondents before the Budapest IV/XV District Court, seeking title to, and termination of, co-ownership. Several respondents lived abroad, causing certain difficulties in summoning them.
6.  The District Court held six hearings between 3 June 2003 and 28 January 2005.
7.  On 27 July 2005 the proceedings were stayed on account of the death of respondent A.G. The applicant, on whom this was legally incumbent, invited the successors to join the proceedings on 22 January 2007.
8.  Between 18 October 2007 and 22 May 2009 five further hearings were held. A partial judgment was delivered on 4 June 2009.
9.  On 23 November 2010 the Budapest Regional Court held a hearing and, by its order of 30 November 2010, quashed the partial judgment and remitted the case to the first instance.
10.  In the resumed proceedings, four hearings were held and a partial judgment was delivered on 25 November 2011.
11.  The proceedings continued on appeal before the Budapest Regional Court, acting as a second-instance court. This court adopted a final partial decision on 7 May 2013.
12.  As to the remainder, it appears from the documents in the case file that the proceedings are still pending.
4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Miskolc.
5.  In 1986 the applicant, together with some other co-accused, was charged with aggravated fraud and other related criminal offences and placed in pre-trial detention. By its decision of 4 July 1990 the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Regional Court party discontinued the criminal proceedings by reason of a general amnesty. As to the remainder of the charges, the applicant was acquitted by the judgment of the Regional Court on 25 October 1990. The Office of the General Attorney appealed but withdrew its appeal on 25 April 1991. The Supreme Court established by its decision of 16 May 1991 that the Regional Court’s judgment had entered into force on 2 May 1991. This decision was served on the applicant and the other defendants on 31 March 1992.
6.  On 21 May 1993 the applicant lodged an action in damages against the Hungarian State for the late service of the final judicial decision. Subsequently he extended his action to include further respondents, the Office of the General Attorney, the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Chief Police Department and the Supreme Court.
7.  By its decision of 26 March 1997, the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s action. On appeal, the Supreme Court, acting as a second instance court, partly upheld the first-instance decision, and as to the complaint against the Supreme Court, remitted the case to the first-instance court. The applicant lodged a petition for review. On 14 May 2001 the Supreme Court upheld the second-instance decision concerning the complaint against the Hungarian State, and remitted the case to the Regional Court as regards the remainder of the respondents.
8.  On 27 September 2003 the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Regional Court partly found for the applicant in the proceedings against the Supreme Court and ordered this latter to pay him 1,900,000 Hungarian forints (HUF) (approximately 6,400 euros (EUR)) plus accrued interests in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
9.  The Budapest Court of Appeal, acting as a second-instance court, increased the amount for the non-pecuniary damage and remitted the case to the first-instance as regards the amount of the pecuniary damage.
10.  In the second set of first-instance proceedings the Regional Court issued its decision on 11 July 2006 ordering the respondent to pay the applicant HUF 3,138,336 (approximately EUR 10,500).
11.  On appeal, the Debrecen Court of Appeal decreased the amount payable to the applicant to HUF 112,349 (approximately EUR 380).
12.  The applicant lodged a petition for review with the Supreme Court. By its decision of 29 November 2007 the Supreme Court increased the amount to HUF 200,000 (approximately EUR 670).
13.  As regards the remainder of the action against the Office of the General Attorney and the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Chief Police Department, the Regional Court issued its decision in the resumed first-instance proceedings on 14 March 2007, dismissing the applicant’s action. This decision was upheld on appeal by the Debrecen Court of Appeal on 26 June 2007.
4.  The applicants were born in 1995, 1969 and 1962, respectively.
5.  On 6 July 1995 the second applicant gave birth to a boy, the first applicant. In 1996 the latter was diagnosed with cerebral atrophy.
6.  On 1 October 1997 the applicants lodged a medical liability action against the hospital where the first applicant was born.
7.  On 30 October 2009 the Pest Central District Court partly found for the applicants and ordered the respondent to pay them respectively 47,647,959 Hungarian forints (HUF) (approximately 163,000 euros (EUR)), HUF 8,000,000 (approximately EUR 27,000) and HUF 3,000,000 (approximately EUR 10,000) and accrued interests. The respondent appealed.
8.  On 26 March 2010 the Budapest Regional Court, acting as a second-instance court, gave judgment, upholding the first-instance decision.
9.  On 21 May 2010 a written copy of the decision was served on the applicants’ lawyer.